The lend-lease act was after Stalingrad. And Stalingrad was as much as a founding battle as Boridino (Moscova for French) was against Napoleon. I think the war

The lend-lease act was after Stalingrad. And Stalingrad was as much as a founding battle as Boridino (Moscova for French) was against Napoleon. I think the war was won there, and after that it was just a matter of time and Hitler not having the atomic bomb. Without the lend-lease, going on an offensive war would have been harder, but the Soviet tanks were better than their german counterparts (the king tiger was too expensive to produce compared to the IS-2, and while the IS-2M was not really tested in battle, it probably could have faced the king, and the Luftwaffe was tied down trying to capitulate the British. To me, the Africa campain - pre-torch - and the Stalingrad battle (plus the frontline stabilizing in the East) was enough as long a Japan did not enter the war. And the British as well as the colonies forces were fundamental at holding Africa, so its not really "USSR won alone", it was more that the US not officially entering the war would not have a huge impact on the final result. Also the passive resistance and the new management methods, pitting dissociated teams against each other was becoming a serious hindrance on innovation and lost time, as well as flawed design (think USSR quality in the 80s). I think this is inherent to this "natural strength/intuition/cleverness/[insert 'quality' here]" propaganda so used by the far right. If you're taught/led to believe "you're failing because of the jews/tzigans/communists" , when those are not here to take the blame, it become harder on your brain to justify your failures.